On the Six-Way Word Order Typology

Studies in Language 21: I. 69-103 (1997). All rights reserved ON THE SIX-WAY WORD ORDER TYPOLOGY MATTHEW S. DRYER State University of New York at Buffalo ABSTRACT A number of arguments are given against the traditional word order typology based on the six types SOY, SVO, VSO, VOS, OVS, and OSV, and in favour of an alternative typology based on two binary parameters OV vs. VO and SV vs. VS. The arguments given include ones based on various advantages of collapsing VSO and VOS into a single type, the infrequency of clauses containing a noun subject and noun object, the value of isolating the more predictive parameter of OV vs. VO, and the fact that the traditional typology ignores the position of intransitive subjects. 1. Introduction There is a long tradition in linguistics that treats the basic word order of the subject, object, and verb as a fundamental typological parameter, that treats the question of whether a language is SOY, SYO, YSO, YOS, OYS, or OSY as one the most important things to know about a language. The purpose of this paper is to present arguments in favour of an alternative to this six-way typology, one based on two separate 2-way typological parame ters: OY vs. YO, and SY vs. YS. Together these two parameters define four types: YS&YO, SY&YO, SY&OY, and YS&OV. The first of these, YS& YO, which I will refer to as verb-initial, corresponds roughly to the two traditional types YSO and YOS; SY & YO corresponds roughly to SYO; SY &OV, which I will refer to as verb-final, corresponds to the two types SOY and bSY; and YS&OY corresponds to the rare type OYS. 1 I will present eight arguments for the proposed typology. First, I will argue that it allows easy classification of languages which are indeterminate- 70 MATTHEW S. DRYER ly VSO/VOS. Second, I will argue that there is no evidence that the differ ence between VSO and VOS languages is predictive of anything: the properties that are typical of VSO languages are apparently also typical of VOS languages, and hence VSO and VOS are best treated as belonging to the same type. Third, I will argue that the difference between VSO and VOS order is a relatively unstable one, both orders being commonly found as basic orders within the same language family and within the same linguistic area. Fourth, I will argue that the traditional six-way typology is based on a clause type that occurs relatively infrequently, while the proposed typology is based on clause types that occur much more frequently. Fifth, I will argue that there are many languages which have word order sufficiently flexible that they are impossible to classify by the traditional typology but which are still classifiable by the proposed typology. Sixth, I will argue that there are other languages with word order even more flexible but which are still classifiable either for the order of subject and verb or for the order of object and verb. Seventh, I will argue that the proposed typology is superior because it isolates the order of the object and verb, the more fundamental typological parameter in terms of word order correlations . And eighth, I will argue that the traditional typology suffers because it overlooks the order of subject and verb in intransitive clauses, even though the order in such clauses is occasionally different from the order of subject and verb in transitive clauses, and even though intransitive clauses containing a noun subject are much more common than transitive clauses containing a noun subject. 2. The notion of basic word order The term basic word order is used in various ways by different lin guists, often without an apparent awareness that it is being applied to different notions. 2 The characterization of basic word order by Hawkins (1983: 13) is representative of criteria assumed by many linguists: he uses a set of different criteria, all of which tend to correlate with each other, though none of them are necessary properties. These include the most frequent order, the order that occurs in the broadest set of syntactic environments, and the order that is unmarked by a variety of other markedness criteria. But ON THE SIX-WAY WORD ORDER TYPOLOGY 71 apart from the description of particular languages, the notion of basic word order has played its most significant role in identifying the orders of various pairs or sets of elements that provide the empirical basis for the crosslinguis tic generalizations originally discussed by Greenberg ( 1963) and pursued in works by various people (e.g. Lehmann 1973, Vennemann 1976, Hawkins 1983, Dryer 1992). Whatever the merits of the various criteria discussed by Hawkins, the fact remains that the empirical basis for these generalizations has largely been statements in grammatical descriptions which describe one order of some pair or set of elements as the normal order or the most common order. In other words, while criteria other than frequency may typically correlate with the most frequent word order, a large body of descriptive literature provides statements regarding the apparent relative frequency of different orders, but very little evidence regarding other criteria, excepting that for many languages, like English, one order is so clearly basic by all criteria that no questions arise. In short, we know that there are significant crosslinguistic generalizations based on a notion of basic order associated with most frequent word order, and the criteria for identifying an order as most frequent are relatively clearcut (though see below). For the purposes of this paper, therefore, I will simply define the basic word order of two or more elements as the most frequent order of those elements in the language. In defining the term basic word order in this way, I am not intending to deny that there may be other useful notions that one might apply the expression to, but the different notions should not be confused. 3 While some linguists assume a notion of basic word order that is not always the most frequent word order, this difference is simply a terminological one, with the term basic word order being used by different linguists as a label for related but distinct notions. Given the fact that most notions of basic word order at least correlate very strongly with the most frequent order, it seems likely that the conclusions of this paper are equally applicable to other notions of basic word order. But whether or not this is the case is difficult to determine, given the difficulties applying other criteria for identifying basic word order. Despite the fact that I appeal to evidence based on frequency, I must concede from the start two fundamental problems with the notion of most frequent order in a language, one methodological, the other substantive. The methodological problem is that, despite the fact that it is often easy to identify a most frequent order in a given body of texts, questions can arise whether the differences in frequency between alternative orders are necessari- 72 MATTHEWS. DRYER ly general properties of texts in the language rather than accidental properties of a particular text or set of texts. What this means is that if we really want to determine whether a particular order is really most frequent in a language, we need to examine as wide a variety of texts representing different genres as possible. If a particular order is more common in most or all texts, then we can justifiably describe that order as most frequent. If no order is most frequent over most texts, however, or if the order varies from genre to genre or text to text, we should probably not describe any particular order as the basic order (in the sense of most frequent order) and we should say that the language is one that lacks a basic word order, as Mithun ( 1987) argues for a number of languages. In short, while it may be relatively easy to identify a most frequent order in a single text or in a small body of texts, it is necessary to examine a wide variety of texts before one can decide with confidence that a particular order is most frequent in the language as a whole. Much of the frequency data cited below falls short of this ideal, and thus the text counts cited should probably be considered in many cases as no more than pilot studies that at best suggest that a particular order is most frequent. The substantive problem with frequency is that frequency is epi phenomenal relative to grammars of languages; typologies of languages are often assumed to be typologies of grammars of languages. Where one order is more frequent than another in a language, I assume it to be the case that the higher frequency ultimately reflects the discourse conditions under which the different orders are used and the order that is more frequent is more frequent only because the discourse conditions in which it is used tend to occur more frequently in normal discourse. Hence frequency is due to two factors, the linguistic factor of the rules or principles governing when particular orders are used, and the nonlinguistic factor of how often particu lar discourse conditions arise. The following example of word order in Papago should make this point clear. Payne (1987: 793-794) cites the text count given in Table 1. ON THE SIX-WAY WORD ORDER TYPOLOGY 73 Table 1: Word Order in Papago sv 48 (23%) ov 44 (29%) vs 158 (77%) vo I 08 (71%) Table I shows that both subjects and objects more commonly follow the verb in Papago.

Load more